The BIG ONE: 20 years of Trump taxes obtained by NYTs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

I’d argue the legitimacy of those rulings. Seriously. It is an investment function of the trade for celebrities, too. Don’t rock the boat that is riding the wave in.

And Trump is an ass.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

I’d argue the legitimacy of those rulings. Seriously. It is an investment function of the trade for celebrities, too. Don’t rock the boat that is riding the wave in.

And Trump is an ass.

You may argue it as much as you like, it is not the law and his accountant surely told him that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

I’d argue the legitimacy of those rulings. Seriously. It is an investment function of the trade for celebrities, too. Don’t rock the boat that is riding the wave in.

And Trump is an ass.

Haircuts can’t be deducted as a business expense because you still have the haircut when you’re done working and you go out on a date or home to sleep. It’s impossible for it to be exclusively for business. If it was, every soldier, sailor, airman and marine should be able to deduct the cost of their EMPLOYER-REQUIRED haircuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

I’d argue the legitimacy of those rulings. Seriously. It is an investment function of the trade for celebrities, too. Don’t rock the boat that is riding the wave in.

And Trump is an ass.

Haircuts can’t be deducted as a business expense because you still have the haircut when you’re done working and you go out on a date or home to sleep. It’s impossible for it to be exclusively for business. If it was, every soldier, sailor, airman and marine should be able to deduct the cost of their EMPLOYER-REQUIRED haircuts.

This is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

I’d argue the legitimacy of those rulings. Seriously. It is an investment function of the trade for celebrities, too. Don’t rock the boat that is riding the wave in.

And Trump is an ass.

Haircuts can’t be deducted as a business expense because you still have the haircut when you’re done working and you go out on a date or home to sleep. It’s impossible for it to be exclusively for business. If it was, every soldier, sailor, airman and marine should be able to deduct the cost of their EMPLOYER-REQUIRED haircuts.

I’m not a Trump fan, but I could see the argument being the hair is the brand, therefore allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Times confirms what everybody knew:

Oh, dear.

Well, I'm sure that $70,000 is his limit of bad faith on taxes.

I’d argue the legitimacy of those rulings. Seriously. It is an investment function of the trade for celebrities, too. Don’t rock the boat that is riding the wave in.

And Trump is an ass.

Haircuts can’t be deducted as a business expense because you still have the haircut when you’re done working and you go out on a date or home to sleep. It’s impossible for it to be exclusively for business. If it was, every soldier, sailor, airman and marine should be able to deduct the cost of their EMPLOYER-REQUIRED haircuts.

I’m not a Trump fan, but I could see the argument being the hair is the brand, therefore allowed.

That would mean he can also deduct his orange foundation!

[Anonymous]

More evidence that Trump isn't rich, he's a clown living on credit. Swindler, scofflaw, serial pathological liar.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Where was the IRS? Should he have been audited multiple times? Was some politician paid off to tell IRS to look the other way until he ran for office?

It is the IRS job to look into the big outliers but they go after hard working people with legitimate deductions. Should be an investigation in the IRS, just the same for the FBI.

If we can't trust our govt institutions and IRS & FBI are the two that hold the most power - this is where you see the distrust.

Why go after Martha Stewart and not Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where was the IRS? Should he have been audited multiple times? Was some politician paid off to tell IRS to look the other way until he ran for office?

It is the IRS job to look into the big outliers but they go after hard working people with legitimate deductions. Should be an investigation in the IRS, just the same for the FBI.

If we can't trust our govt institutions and IRS & FBI are the two that hold the most power - this is where you see the distrust.

Why go after Martha Stewart and not Trump?

Women are frequently scapegoated. And going after the woman who had a reputation as someone with impeccable taste and multiple homes, someone famous everyone could focus on and not think about all the people who had actually ripped us all off?

Also, the orange traitor has the force of the fascist government behind him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 where are the “I pay more federal taxes than Donald Trump” lawn signs?

[Anonymous]

So much winning.

[Anonymous]

For all of the people who said things like “he’s just a businessman who takes advantage of loopholes,” stuff like treating a personal residence like an investment property is illegal, not a “loophole.”

Trump got a $21 million tax break for saving the forest outside his N.Y. mansion. Now the deal is under investigation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-got-a-21-million-tax-break-for-saving-the-forest-outside-his-ny-mansion-now-the-deal-is-under-investigation/2020/10/07/de84c1ba-ff6b-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html